MR. LATROBE AS SUPERINTENDENT 261 



Superintendent down to the Court crier. The Bar, the officers of 

 the Court and the mercantile litigants who came under his lash 

 combined to appeal for his removal, and it was finally effected in a 

 rather melodramatic manner on the 24th of June, 1843. 



One of the injudicious acts that helped to seal his doom with 

 the powers in Sydney was that he read out in his Court a decision 

 of the Full Court of New South Wales reversing a ruling he had 

 given, and from which there had been an appeal. He punctuated 

 his reading with sarcastic references to the intelligence of the 

 Appeal Court, and overwhelmed their conclusions with contemp- 

 tuous dissent. A course so calculated to bring the Law into con- 

 tempt could not be ignored, and he was shortly afterwards removed 

 from office by Sir George Gipps in response to an extensively signed 

 memorial accusing the Judge of misbehaviour. Unfortunately, the 

 steps taken in effecting his removal were not strictly constitutional, 

 as Willis was not given an opportunity of replying to the allegations 

 of the memorial. The consequence was that on his return to 

 England he brought his case before the Privy Council, where the 

 arguments dragged on for three years. The result finally reached 

 was that the Privy Council decided that Willis ought to have been 

 given an opportunity of replying to his accusers, but from the 

 evidence before them they would recommend his dismissal all the 

 same. This was then formally done by the Crown, but he was 

 allowed to draw his full pay for the period between the date of his 

 irregular removal and its confirmation by the Privy Council. This 

 little episode, with the addition of legal expenses, cost the colony 

 nearly 6,000, but by the time the settlement was arrived at the 

 judicial vagaries had almost been forgotten. 



The indignities which had been associated with the administra- 

 tion of justice vanished with the accession of Mr. William Jeffcott to 

 the bench, where he took his seat on the 15th of July, 1843. He 

 had been a leading member of the Bar in Sydney, and as none of 

 the Judges there would consent to remove to Melbourne, he was 

 offered the appointment. He was the very antithesis of his prede- 

 cessor courteous, impartial, orderly and good-tempered. He got 

 through a large amount of work, and earned the amity of the Bar 

 and the respect of litigants by his promptness in action and zeal for 



